I think you're being too kind - TFA strikes me as basically a long confused "if we assume X then we find X". I mean, in the introduction the author gives a sta

I think you're being too kind - TFA strikes me as basically a long confused "if we assume X then we find X". I mean, in the introduction the author gives a standard definition of the Gambler's Fallacy, but then he immediately says "but it can't really mean that, because that's clearly irrational". It's not very hard to prove something is rational if you start by rejecting definitions that are irrational!